comicIDIOT wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
comicIDIOT wrote:
I would like to propose a rule addition that prevents towns from being engulfed by another town, or combination of towns. If I remember correctly, the town around Shoeblox was created by one user and was part of a nation, which was then benefited by a Nation Bonus. I will enforce this rule retroactively.
This seems like way too much administrative intervention to me. The town that got engulfed had plenty of spare plots to prevent its engulfment; it could have poked out spare plots into a spit that would have repulsed the surrounding town. If anything, the administrative intervention appropriate to the situation might be to rebalance nation bonuses, plot costs, and so on, rather than directly intervene in town size and location. They could have prevented that from happening, yes. But I'm pretty sure AHelper made that city in an evening before Shoeblox had a chance to know what was happening; I distinctively remember getting a PM about how Shoeblox was now surrounded. I'm not intervening with town size and location what so ever. Players are still free to put a border right up to another and make their towns as large as needed. I was actually hundreds of miles away from my computer when this happened, so I couldn't have done anything about it, even if I was lucky enough to be watching on the dynamic map as it was occurring. rivereye wrote:
I have to agree with what Comic is saying. What was done basically prevented a town from doing anything. Shoeblox may have had expansion plans and was saving up cash to make them.
Kerm, you said that people could go ahead and use up the plots they have, but not everyone of use wants to do something like that right now. I like to acquire a plot as I need them, so that I have that flexibility to make changes to my town as needed. For instance, if I had my plots used up, I likely would not be able to use the dungeon spawners I found that were just outside the border of my town. I had the plots to be able to secure them up, but if I had fully purchased my plots, may have had to do some major changes to get them to be secured.
Yes, this new rule does benefit one town greatly right now, but sometimes you have to look also at how the rule will affect towns in the long term as well.
I agree completely. I had been expanding the town in a square to hold all of the residential plots, but I stopped at 13x13 in case I found something that I wanted to claim. If I knew this was going to happen I would have indeed used them all. charlessprinkle wrote:
I agree that other factors such as nationbonus, plot cost, etc. would be a fair compromise and administrative intervention. The nationbonus has been used for good reasons though, since there is more room to be constructive, and I feel it would be a disappointment to see the most common usage of a nationbonus go to waste. If there is some rule that rolls out regarding encasing towns that will prevent abuse, I would like to see nationbonus keep its scaling for constructive purposes, i.e. maintain current values per people in nation. My own town, Thaslassius, is an example of what can be done with a larger nationbonus, and will henceforth intend on being an example of constructive usage.
I don't think nation bonus should be reduced, because I don't think that is the problem. A town of 6 people and no nation could surround a brand new town with only one plot. If anything, I propose that nation bonuses go up in the same linear pattern beyond 60 people, so that nations have reasons to get bigger once they hit that 60 people mark. I think plot cost should be left alone too. Most of the time, it takes more plots for the town than to box it in, making it self-defeating.
Edit:
Kerm has already changed the nation bonuses to extend in the linear direction. comicIDIOT wrote:
CalebHansberry wrote:
So I don't mind if a town the size of Expansion Blocker can spring up, I only mind if it is touching over 50% of an enemy town.
That basically defeats the purpose of an "expansion blocker." I would like to push my idea again, that only one "Expansion Blocker" may be erected at a time per Nation. Though as we only have a 2-Nation server, it's almost a moot point. I agree with Caleb, I have to disagree with comic's idea. 50% is a fair number to enforce, and if both the towns want to be more than 50%, then let them. Anyway, I thought the point was to defeat the purpose of an expansion blocker. Also, allowing one expansion blocker per nation is a bad idea. That is saying it is OKAY to encase a town, which that shouldn't be the case. CVSoft wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
Quote:
That basically defeats the purpose of an "expansion blocker." I would like to push my idea again, that only one "Expansion Blocker" may be erected at a time per Nation. Though as we only have a 2-Nation server, it's almost a moot point.
This whole line of discussion is silly, in my opinion, because I believe this is intended as a one-off strategy to address a specific issue, namely another tactic to force Shoeblox to relocate and abandon the ugly box structure. This was the point of the TNT-backed raid, as well, and I'm sure future attempts will/would be completely new things.
Expansion blockers, in general, are bad. The one that exists currently targets a nation that has little means to pay for its removal and has already been raided to oblivion (prompting the previous rules). It feels like bullying, since it holds the future of Shoeblox hostage as Aeternum-Elysium wants to watch the walls of Shoeblox fall. However, their mayor FrozenFire49, has spent months building the walls; they have strong sentimental value.
Additionally, only one nation is large enough to pull off an expansion blocker, and it is highly unlikely that another nation of Aeternum-Elysium's scale will ever be formed. By leaving yourself with the capability to use an expansion blocker, you basically give yourself the exclusive ability to use it. This is very true.